32-bit or 64-bit? | The Coffeehouse

Loadsgood
What is your answer?

Ok, I'm trying to determine which direction I should go on for a PC.

Basically I want a computer that I can upgrade and have with me in working order for the next ten years. But I don't want anything to do with DRM, I heard Intel supported DRM, so I'm going with AMD (unless they also support DRM, in which case I'm stuffed) and I've had the least problems with NVidia, than I've had with ATi so I'm going with them. I like cutting snippets of songs, game sounds and the like, and I feel that going in a musical direction along with developing would be a whole lot of fun, so no integrated sound for me. I also want to watch/record digital (High Definition is a no no for now) TV shows on my computer so I'll need something for that to.

The main question overall is should I go with 32-bit or 64-bit? 32-bit has been around for ages and is compatible with nearly everything, but what is 64-bit's stand in the computer world? I am yet to see a single x64 coded program (besides Windows x64 of course), and I'm wondering if it is compatible with today's hardware and it's upgradability (if I want a 10 year old computer I will definitely have to upgrade every now and then).

Since I don't know how much I'm going to get for my laptops, and how much I'm going to be able to save, I don't really know what my budget is. If I get a second hand PC now, is it easy to upgrade it piece by piece? I'm pretty much a n00b in the area of PC hardware and all I've done is read a "How to build a PC" book that was made 2 years ago. So any suggestions on how the market is going and how I can watch the market for PCs and their insides is going to help me a lot on my quest to get a PC.

Oh, and what are the advantages of an x64 over an x86? Bragging rights?
Loadsgood.

NetRyder
Tech Junkie

The dual-core Athlon64 X2's are some of the best-performing consumer-line processors currently on the market. Great for heavy multi-tasking since the two cores can essentially perform multiple tasks simultaneously without a glitch.

If you're going for a new machine, I don't see any reason why you should go for a 32-bit CPU at this stage. If you're concerned about compatibility (and rightfully so), you can run the regular 32-bit version of XP, along with all your 32-bit drivers and applications, on a x86-64 CPU without a problem. You'll still benefit from the performance of the processor, although you won't really be using its 64-bit capabilities, per se.

Moreover, by opting for a 64-bit CPU, you're making your new system relatively future-proof (if there's even such a thing in the tech world!). If and when 64-bit systems and software become mainstream in the near future, you'll have a machine that's ready for the transition.

Hope that helps. Smiley

Eric Falsken
db4o Product Specialist

DRM will be unavoidable, congress is seeing to that. Even with intel, you can turn off the processor ID. That shouldn't be part of your consideration.

AMD processors smoke when they overheat. Intel ones slow down and shut off. Other than that, the CPUs really are about equal. More importaintly, Intel-based motherboards are light-years ahead of non-Intel chipsets, so that's a strong vote for Intel CPU/MoBo combination. I think everyone will agree that Via and SiS motherboards are only good enough to wipe your a55 with. (ouch)

Vista and future software will start to take advantage of 64-bit processing. Right now, it's almost pointless, unless you're one of those rare users who might actually utilize such functionality (engineering, databases, or 3D)

Maurits
AKA Matthew van Eerde

Loadsgood wrote:
I want a computer that I can upgrade and have with me in working order for the next ten years

Ten years? That's a very tall order. Ten-year old computers in working order are a rarity.

But you'll definitely want a 64-bit processor, at any rate.

Loadsgood
What is your answer?

Ten years an unreachable goal hey?... I guess I should probably half that to five years. I just want the computer to be able to last a long time.

Oh and I forgot to mention that I wanted overclocking capabilities as well. But I probably have to choose between overclocking and long life and if I choose AMD I don't want to overheat it either. I guess I might as well hop on the future train and go with x64 rather than x86 which means I have to go with AMD.

Oh, another burning question is why do companies believe 1000MB = 1GB? Is that the norm with every harddrive manufacturer or are there companies that do care?

Thanks for that PM Beer, I've sent you another.
Loadsgood.

Maurits
AKA Matthew van Eerde

All marketing statistics consider:
1 KB = 1000 B
1 MB = 1000 KB
1 GB = 1000 MB
1 TB = 1000 GB

Which wouldn't be so bad, except that EVERYWHERE ELSE
1 KB = 1024 B
1 MB = 1024 KB
1 GB = 1024 MB
1 TB = 1024 GB

Why? It makes the drive seem a little bigger than it is. Sad.

Not as bad as backup tapes, which are advertised at "compressed capacity" of 40 GB. This would be fine, except that they "assume a compression ratio of 2.0". This is just silly.

The capacity of the tape is 20 GB. Period. If you can compress 40 GB of data down to 20 GB, that doesn't increase the capacity of the tape.

andokai

Eric Falsken wrote:
Intel-based motherboards are light-years ahead of non-Intel chipsets, so that's a strong vote for Intel CPU/MoBo combination. I think everyone will agree that Via and SiS motherboards are only good enough to wipe your a55 with. (ouch)

I'd have to disagree there Eric. While Intel chipsets might compare favourably to Via and SiS, they themselves are nothing compared to the Nvidia chipsets, especially in the top end.

Loadsgood wrote:
I guess I might as well hop on the future train and go with x64 rather than x86 which means I have to go with AMD.

Loadsgood, you are incorrect there, most current Pentiums now support x64. They don't make it too obvious mind.

This article might help you decide. It shows that the current generation of Intel chips are lagging far behind.

HTH,
Andrew

Loadsgood
What is your answer?

Hey thanks for that link andokai, it made me really want to get a AMD Dual core x64 processor although I wonder what would happen if they were fighting each other under 'stress tests'.

Having read this 2 year old 'build your own PC' book, it keeps saying that the graphics card has its own slot, the Advanced Graphics Port (AGP) slot, but none of the systems I see today have that, they have Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) am I behind the times or what? Also the book says stuff about EIDE but the latest computers only have IDE. Oh and what the heck is EIDE and IDE? (Not talking about Visual Studio)

Wow, Intel has x64 CPUs? Wierd. Why doesn't Intel advertise them more? Must be because they know their x64 CPU is crap Tongue Out
Loadsgood.

andokai

2 years is a long time when it comes to PC hardware Big Smile

EIDE stands for Enhanced Integrated Drive Electronics, however you want to ignore them and concentrate on SATA drives.

PCI-E is the new slot for graphics cards. Eventually it will replace AGP. Card makers are no longer making new cards for AGP.

Edit: Isn't wikipedia great, here's details of Intel's 64-bit implementation.

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

You should get a 64 bit processor for sure. But you're probably best of sticking to a 32 bit OS. Hard- and software compatibility with Windows x64 is still a bit lacking, and unless you run x64 software there's virtually no benefits (note that with .Net 2.0, all pure msil applications will be 64 bit on x64).

The driver story is well-known. If you want to run XP x64, better check in advance if all the hardware you're getting is compatible. There's however also some software issues. Office 2003 install an icon handler for html and xml files which is 32 bit. The 64 bit explorer can't use that so your icons for those file types are gone. There's still no good replacement for Daemon Tools (DT promised x64 compatibility for DT4, but didn't deliver) or Ethereal. Not all archivers will have working right-click menus in the 64 bit explorer (WinRAR does however since version 4.5). If you use ActiveSync you won't be able to browse your handheld from the 64 bit explorer (note you can still explicitly launch the 32 bit explorer.exe, so it's not completely impossible).

So unless you like tinkering with the cutting edge (like me Wink ) and really must have the latest and greatest, just stick with regular 32 bit Windows for now. But for processors, there's hardly any choice. Do they even still make 32 bit only desktop CPUs?